Kerala Court June 1990 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
K.C. Madhava Kurup Vs. K. Muraleedharan
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-18-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ker20
ORDERK.G. Balakrishanan, J.1. The petitioner contested the General Election to the House of the people (Lok Sabha) held on 22-11-1989 from Kozhikode Parliamentary constituency as a candidate of 'Jena Seva' party. The respondent was declared elected from the said Parliamentary constituency by a margin of 28950 votes. The petitioner alleges that the respondent committed serious corrupt practices and, therefore, his election is to be declared void. In the petition the petitioner alleges four types of corrupt practices committed by the respondent. The respondent filed preliminary objections denying the allegations in the petition. The respondent contends that the allegations in the petition are vague and they are frivolous and vexatious. It is also contended that the petitioner has not complied with the mandate of Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The respondent prays that the allegations in the petition are liable to be struck out und...
Kali Narayani and ors. Vs. Neelakantan Nanu and anr.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-18-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Ker66
K. Sukumaran, J.1. A doubt expressed on the correctness of the decision of our learned brother Pareed Pillay, J. in Anna v. Devasia, 1986 Ker LT 79 led to the reference of the case to the Division Bench.2. The second appeal arose out of a suit for redemption and a claim of Kudikidappu. The property had been mortgaged under Ext. P-2 dated 6-10-1951. The mortgage rights were assigned in favour of the 1st defendant by Ext. P-3 dated 13-7-1954. Second defendant was the husband and the 3rd defendant, the son of the assignee-mortgagee. Defendants 2 and 3 were impleaded as persons residing in the suit property. The suit was decreed but subject to the right of kudi-kidappu of the defendants in the suit property. In appeal, kudikidappu claim was denied on the ground that there was a joint acquisition covered by Ext. P-4, and if the share in that property is also reckoned, the assignee-mortgagee will be in possession of an excess over the permissible area to qualify for Kudikidappu rights. This ...
Muthoottu Chitty Fund and ors. Vs. V.C. Lukose and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-18-1990
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas414(Ker)
K. Sukumaran, J.1. These appeals challenge the decrees of the court below in money claims based on a cheque endorsed in favour of the plaintiff.2. Various contentions were taken to resist the plaint claim, even to the extent of stating that the cheques were forged. The cheques in any case were accommodation cheques and, therefore, no money was payable, was yet another contention. These contentions were rightly negatived by the court below. It was found that a plea regarding the cheque being an accommodation cheque' was not even indicated in the written statement. In one case, a reply notice was sent. But a plea of an accommodation cheque was conspicuously absent. In other cases, no replies were sent at all.3. The second defendant was the person competent to speak about the nature of the cheque. He shied away from the witness box. We are in agreement with the view taken by the court below in the light of the evidence, materials and circumstances.4. Even assuming that that is an accommod...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. George Varghese
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-18-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR736(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions, in the above two cases, for the decision of this court :'Income-tax Reference No. 61 of 1987 : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and has jurisdiction to hold that the land in question is not a capital asset within the meaning of the definition and hence not liable to capital gains tax on its sale Income-tax Reference No. 11 of 1988 : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in law in holding that no tax on capital gains was leviable on the sale of the land in question ?' The respondents are assessees to income-tax. The assessees sold agricultural lands during the relevant accounting periods which resulted in capital gains. They put forward the plea that capital gains accruing as a result of the sale of agricultural land is not exigible to levy of income-tax. This pl...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Malayalam Plantations (India) Ltd.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-18-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR322(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the decision of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right:-- (i) in applying/relying on Rule 3(c)(ii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ? (ii) in directing the Income-tax Officer to value the perquisites by way of the car provided by the assessee to its employees as per Rule 3(c)(ii) and to consider only this amount for disallowance under Section 40A(5) ?' 2. The respondent is a plantation company. We are concerned with the assessment year 1979-80. The previous year ended on March 31, 1979. The assessee had given cars for the use of the employees. In bringing to tax the income of the respondent-company, the Income-tax Officer disallowed one-third of the expenditure and depreciation on the said cars. This was affirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). But, in second appeal, the Income-tax Appel...
K.M. Rajan, Rajan and Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-18-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR376(Ker)
D.J. Jagannadha Raju, J. 1. This writ appeal is filed by the unsuccessful petitioner in Original Petition No. 4181 of 1989-W. By judgment dated May 25, 1989, K.M. Rajan, Rajan and Co. v. CIT : [1989]180ITR228(Ker) , the learned single judge, Sukumaran J., dismissed the original petition filed for granting a writ of certiorari to quash exhibits P-1, P-3 and P-4.2. In this appeal, Shri E. R. Venkiteswaran strongly contended that, in view of the assessee filing a fresh return admitting a total income of Rs. 2,50,000 soon after the survey was conducted at his house, there is no justification for levying interest and penalty. He places strong reliance upon the judgment dated February 6, 1990, by a Division Bench of this court in W. A. Nos. 102, 103, 109, 119, 120, 121, 126, 127 and 136 of 1989 (A.V. Joy, Alukkas Jewellery v. CIT : [1990]185ITR638(Ker) ), and contends that this is a case where there is voluntary disclosure and hence there is no justification for imposing the penalty and for ...
K. Venu Vs. Director General of Police, Trivandrum and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-15-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Ker344
ORDERChettur Sankaran Nair, J. 1. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to compel respondents, to grant him permission to hold a public meeting at Kodungallur on 16-6-1990, and at other places subsequently. The second prayer, vague as it is, cannot be granted.2. The meeting at Kodungallur is stated for tomorrow. Petitioner would submit that he made a request by Ext.P1 on 11-6-1990, that no orders have been passed thereon, and that permission is not likely to be granted. The reason for this according to petitioner, is that the cause he proposes to advocate, is not palatable to the respondents. Counsel submits that petitioner is guaranteed freedom of expression, and that this includes the freedom to express his views through a loud-speaker. Counsel did not support his contention on the basis of any authority. I, for one, am not inclined to hold that the right to use a loudspeaker is a fundamental right in itself. Sound pollution is an accepted danger, and indiscriminate use of loud-speaker...
Executive Officer, Kaduthuruthy Panchayat Vs. Chacko Joseph
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-15-1990
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1968
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J. 1. Executive Officer, Kaduthuruthy Panchayat is the appellant. He filed the complaint against the accused under Section 74 of the Kerala Panchayats Act read with Rule 26 of the Kerala Panchayats (Taxation and Appeal) Rules, 1963. The trial Court found the accused not guilty and acquitted him.2. The short question that has to be considered in this appeal is as to whether the accused had committed wilful default in paying the building tax to the Panchayat. Panchayat made demand for the building tax for the period 1985-86. Ext. P1 is the demand notice. The demand was made on 17-12-1985. Contention of the accused is that Rule 26 of the Kerala Panchayats (Taxation and Appeal) Rules, 1963 cannot be straightway applied and only if steps were taken under Section 74 of the Kerala Panchayats Act prosecution could be launched.3. Section 74 of the Act provides that any arrear of cess, rate, surcharge or tax imposed or fees levied under the Act shall be recoverable as an arre...
Gordhandas Khimji (Huf) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-13-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR365(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. At the instance of an assessee to income-tax, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the decision of this court:'Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of Section 2(6A)(e) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, are applicable to the applicant's case and the advances made by the company to the applicant are assessable to tax as deemed dividend under Section 2(6A)(e) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?'2. The respondent is the Revenue. We are concerned with the assessment year 1961-62. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. The said family is a shareholder in a company known as Messrs. Bharat Plywood and Timber Products (Pvt.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'). The company is not one in which the public are substantially interested. As on December 15, 1959, there were debits in the accounts of the assessee-Hindu undivided family with the company to the extent of Rs. 4,61,038. Th...
M.J. Vijayapadman Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jun-07-1990
Reported in: [1991]192ITR301(Ker)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. These two references arise under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the decision of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the proceedings under Section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, were valid in law?'2. The respondent is the Revenue. We are concerned with the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. For wealth-tax purposes, the relevant valuation dates are March 31, 1974, and March 31, 1975. The original assessments made under the Wealth-tax Act against the assessee were rectified on the ground that a mistake had crept in the orders. Proceedings were passed under Section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act for both the years dated March 11, 1982. In appeals, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that there is no mistake apparent from the records to be rectified under Section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act. In further appeal preferred by th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »